Discussion Locked

For the media bashers

0 helpful
106 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This news item should bring a warm, fuzzy glow to all those who love to hate the media.

Now before you start cheering, bear in mind that if it weren't for the media you wouldn't know what was happening around the world, and there would be no juicy political discussions.

After one of the worst years on record for the killing of journalists, the International Federation of Journalists today launched its annual report on media deaths with a renewed call for the United States and other governments to take seriously their responsibility to investigate media killings.

?Too often governments display a heartless and cruel indifference to the suffering endured by the victims and their families,? said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. ?Too often so-called investigations into the killings of our colleagues are merely a whitewashing exercise.?

The IFJ, which today said 129 journalists and media employees were killed last year, the worst 12-month toll on record.

?Behind each tragic death is a story of widespread intimidation and violence against journalists being carried out on a scale never seen before,? said White. ?We honour each of those who have died, from the dedicated and courageous correspondents to the support staff who make up the media team.?

In a wide-ranging report that covers media deaths in 34 countries, the IFJ has attacked the impunity and injustice in the way governments respond to media deaths.

?There tends to be a few meaningless words of regret, a cursory inquiry and a shrug of indifference,? said White. ?It is inexcusable in an age when the world relies more than ever on media to tell the story that many governments fail to bring the killers of journalists to justice or excuse themselves when their own people are involved.?

The IFJ says that the investigation by the US government into the killing of two journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad on April 8 2003, which was issued last November, was a tragic example. ?Here was an incident where soldiers fired on media in broad daylight, yet the military exonerate themselves and fail to take responsibility. It is denial of justice on a shocking scale.?

The IFJ says that the unexplained killing of media staff and journalists in Iraq, involving 12 of the 69 violent deaths since the war began, shows why new international rules are needed to force independent investigations of media killings. The Federation plans a worldwide protest over the failure of the US to carry out such inquiries on April 8th ? the second anniversary of the Palestine Hotel attack.

The IFJ report also highlights a similar ambivalence among political leaders in the Ukraine where the Federation has been pressing the authorities to come clean over the case of journalist Gyorgy Gongadze brutally murdered more than four years ago by anonymous killers linked to the authorities in the Ukraine.

The IFJ report, which carries a special focus on how the Asian Tsunami disaster hit media in the affected areas, also criticises the government of the Philippines, where 13 journalists died last year. There were only two serious investigations and these failed to lead to any prosecutions. The IFJ further criticised official proposals from Manila to arm journalists in a bid to counter the targeting of reporters, particular those working for local radio.

?It is a sorry tale of incompetence and lack of political will, made worse by the absurd notion that journalists can only protect themselves by taking up guns,? said White. ?This is precisely the sort of abdication of governmental responsibility that will only make life even more dangerous for journalists.?

Despite graphic evidence of a deteriorating situation for journalists in many areas, the IFJ also provides some evidence of a new determination within media and journalism to confront the crisis.

Almost 30,000 Euro has been donated from the IFJ?s International Safety Fund to the victims of violence and their families. ?This is real solidarity from journalist to journalist and we are going to need much more of it in the years to come,? said White.

The IFJ also welcomed the news that, at the year?s end, the International Safety Institute opened up safety offices in Latin America and Africa with new offices to open in Asia and the Middle East before the end of the month.

?The INSI is a response from within the media industry to the safety crisis,? said White. ?It is a practical and determined effort involving media organisations and employees to reduce the risks we face and to put pressure on governments to deliver on their responsibilities. Every journalist?s union and every media employer should add their weight to this effort.?

For further information contact: +32 2 235 22 07
The IFJ represents over 500,000 journalists in more than 110 countries

106 replies

by levannah44

Well, I'm sorry, Julian, but try as I might, I simply can't bash either journalists or journalism. I've far too much respect for what they do.

After all, it's us, the public, who sit comfortably at home, safe and secure as we watch the news on telly, or listen on the radio or read it in the newspaper that generally want just BAD news.

Now I guess that's something for another discussion or thread, this odd behaviour we exhibit for just wanting to hear the bad, but it's BECAUSE of this that the media has to go into so many dangerous places in the world just to satisfy our lust for gore.

Do we give them so much as a thought? Get real, people; all we think about is watching all this blood and guts on TV, or whatever.

So if it wasn't for this sick craving we, the public, rely on for the media to satiate our appetites for, I imagine there wouldn't be so many journalistic deaths each year.

I don't have any bright ideas about how to change anything, or get rid of this sick mindset we all seem to share.

But it's about time we began to think a little more of those very brave folks who go out into the world, day after day, in pursuit of what we want to know, and often get hurt or killed during the process.

Long live journos, and bless the bloody lot of them!

Levannah

by jaqui

don't want gruesome death, do go to the front lines of the war zones.

hang out in non combat zones.

if they insist on going nito war zones, then quit whining about members being killed.

how many non military iraqui died in the same time period?
( bet it would make the media deaths less than 1% )

"media" deaths do not need to be investigated, any more than any non-combatant deaths do. no less either.

media agencies need to be investigated for sending thier people into extremely dangerous situations.
bullets don't play favorites, they kill whoever gets in front of them.

by dafe2

Including Geraldo & Gerry Springer!

And your right.............I only want the news not slanted BS or the gory picture of the day.

Contrary to (seemingly) popular beliefs many or most people don't watch or care about 'reality' TV. The media people (& their self important attitude) have decided these are the things most people want to see, all the while putting their own people in danger.

by tony hopkinson

Be nice if they took the cast and the audience too.

Probably me, but I never got the impression the people decided what was newsworthy. The media companies seem to have taken that responsibility on for themselves. Quite useful from a commercial point of view that.

Complaining to government, talk about pi**ing in the wind, the only time they like any journalist is when the report is in their interest.

by jardinier

"The media people (& their self important attitude) have decided these are the things most people want to see."

Perhaps then you can explain why TV stations depend on ratings for their choice of content, and the time slots of various material.

PLEASE NOTE: Ratings are surveys of which types of programs get the greatest number of viewers. And you have the gall to say the media imposes these preferences on us?

by apotheon

If the IFJ wants to ensure that investigations of media deaths are carried out more seriously, it should encourage its members to do a little investigative reporting of their own. Investigate the lack of attention given to some journalist deaths, and expose the people doing the "whitewashes" to public scrutiny. Follow the trail back to elected officials, and you'll suddenly get more elected officials on your side (for fear of being likewise exposed, if nothing else).

I'm not too keen on [b]anyone[/b] being killed, generally speaking. As far as I'm concerned, killing is only justified in defense against coercion and violence. Journalists often get killed without being directly involved in coercion and violence. In other words, they're the victims of coercion and violence, a lot of the time.

Of course, there are circumstances where the journalists are acting in a coercive manner. Once in a while, force may even be warranted as a response. Journalists are not separate from the rest of humanity: they, too, must accept responsibility for their actions. Of course, most humans make it their life's work to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

That bit about getting upset that the Manila government wants to arm journalists pisses me off, though. If the Manila government's representatives said "Carry guns. We won't help," I'd understand the outrage, but just taking the suggestion that journalists carry firearms amiss indicates a distinct lack of willingness to provide for oneself, as far as I'm concerned. If you can't take some responsibility for your own life, I don't see why I should be expected to. Yes, expect that deaths will be investigated and efforts will be made to bring the killers to justice.

Don't turn down the opportunity to help prevent those deaths in the first place by defending yourself, though. Negative reactions like the IFJ's to the suggestion that people take responsibility for their own lives are symptomatic of a lot of what's wrong with modern society.

by amcol

...incredibly, monumentally, preposterously heartless and naive comment you've posted.

How can you compare the statistical significance of the deaths of media members with that of the general population, Iraqi or otherwise? One person's life is any more or less precious than another's? What point are you trying to make here...that since there are less media deaths per capita than civilian, media members are more expendable? Or don't deserve the same consideration as anyone else? Or perhaps you mean that because the media CHOSE to go into the war zones, rather than be there by virtue of prior residence, their misfortunes are less worthy of our attention?

Foreign correspondents shouldn't be in danger's path, up at the front lines or wherever else? How precisely, then, would you like to receive your news from such areas? From the combatants? From the governments involved? They'll give us the straight story, no doubt about that.

Or perhaps you prefer to receive no news at all, just after all the smoke's cleared. That worked really well in Cambodia and Laos in the 60's, didn't it?

You propose the media should be investigated for sending people into war zones. News flash (no pun intended)...that's their job. Perhaps, using your logic, we should investigate the federal government. After all, they sell a military career as one in which you can see the world, get great training, make money for college, do cool things with cool equipment, blow stuff up. Hey, wait a minute...you also have to go shoot people? And get shot at? The commercials on TV didn't talk about THAT part.

There's no question there are a lot of problems with the media. Too often they manufacture stories by taking something inconsequential and blowing it way, way out of proportion. Sometimes the media itself becomes the story...witness what happened during the O.J. and Scott Petersen trials, when on slow news days the stories were all about how many reporters were covering the trials. And yes, all too often they deliberately misrepresent the facts or engage in sloppy research in their headlong rush to get the news on our doorsteps. Sorry to further disillusion you, but the job of the media is not to report the news...it's to get you to watch the show, buy the newspaper, read the magazine. They're a money making proposition like any business. And if they have to go into a war zone to get the story, putting themselves in harm's way to do so, well they know the risks when they sign up. No one's forcing them to go, despite your ridiculous contention that the various agencies "send" people places they don't want to be.

And none of that means, when they do come to harm, that we shouldn't feel less worse about it because they aren't entirely innocent.

Your comment about the media "whining" about its members being killed...sorry, but it's just so inhumanly nonsensical it requires no rebuttal.

You sound like you have some intelligence. Use it next time, before you just parrot some mindless rhetoric you heard from someone else.

by jaqui

if you choose to go into a war zone, then you choose to put your life at risk.

doesn't matter where the bullets came from, they will kill from either side of the conflict.

personally, I DO NOT WANT to see pictures of death and dismemberment.
so if the press choose to go get those pictures and die from it, it is thier own fault.
and if they don't want to die, don't go there.

prior to vietnam, press never went to the front lines, they waited until the military had moved on to talk to the non combatants that were there.
they stayed with the support group for the military.
they didn't get killed on the front lines then.
since they started the front lines stuff in vietnam, they have been getting killed on the front lines.
thier choice, not societys. thiers.

you want to have blood and gore on your news, you pay for the investigation costs.
I don't want blood and gore in my face on the news.
I don't want to watch people getting executed with a bullet through the head while eating.

people wonder why society is getting more violent, with pictures like these being pushed into our faces, it's no wonder.

front lines by choice, no investigation needed if death results.
they got shot in a battle that is how they died.

by jardinier

that the media has an innate social responsiblity to report only the unembellished facts.

However as "amcol" correctly points out, the various branches of the media are businesses, whose primary responsibility is to generate a dividend for their shareholders.

If any organisation should have a responsiblilty to report only the unembellished facts, then that would be the Government.

So get your news from whitehouse.gov and you will have nothing to complain about (although I find whitehouse.org eminently more entertaining and in its own way, closer to the truth).

As for not wanting to watch gory images, nobody is obliging you to watch TV at all. Just switch to The Simpsons, or read a book.

Likewise no-one is compelling you to buy newspapers. So boycott them, and get on with your lives.

by jdclyde

How long did you hear about the beheading of Pearl a few years back? There wasn't as much outrage over this as the humiliation tactics in the Iraq prisions by US troops.

by jardinier

I challenge any of the media bashers to abstain for four weeks from watching, listening, reading any form of news media. And this includes the internet.

At the end of the four weeks, you can then enlighten the rest of us as to what has taken place throughout the world in those 4 weeks.

If you hate the media so much, and have no respect for those who put their lives on the line to bring you the news from war zones, then please present your suggestions for an alternative way of knowing what's going on.

The hypocrisy presented uninterruptedly on this website is pathetic to say the least.

Get all your information from the media, and then abuse the peope who have brought you than information.

I am indeed curious to know how it is that people who asssume every media report is by nature biased or sensationalised, can actually form any sort of opinion about world events.

Perhaps some of you have crystal balls, or attend seances, where you can learn the facts, unadulterated by the processes in the media.

Pathetic. But keep whining -- or perhaps some of you might like to volunteer to go to the war zones and provide us with your unbiased accounts.

by jaqui

using the methods that worked prior to vietnam?
and they did work.
without going into combat zones.
if the press choose to enter into areas where they can be killed in combat then they don't need to have thier deaths investigated, they were killid in combat.

by hal 9000

Durring the Blitz of WW11?

Now those guys where just sitting at their desks and the front lines came to them.

So far in all but one case in the US you have been lucky you have only had one foreign power attack you once. How do you think you would feel if it was a daily event for 4 years?

There was another instance where some foreign nationals because of a misguided sense of righteousness flew commercial airliners into buildings. Two where straight civilian targets and where for the public consumption {Scare you} the third was a proper military target and at least could in some form be justified while the fourth fell to ground in a field because the passengers would just not sit there and hope for the best.

Now out of those 4 aircraft which do you think had the better citizens on it?

Col

by dafe2

Media and its people are valued. No one wants to see loss of any kind of life. (Even Geraldo)

The media can tell a story without a one sided view, opinion or sensationalized photography or cinematography.

I can understand a war story without seeing a reporter hanging off a tank telling me the story

I can understand a murder story without the gory pictures.

I can understand OJ Simpson being charged with murder without "we interupt this program to bring you a breaking story" for a two hour ?car chase?

And on & on??give us the news & leave the drama to Hollywood.

To be clear ? It is very sad when someone loses life?..media or otherwise.
IMO these people put there lives at risk unnecessarily for that ?unforgettable?
Shot. They?ve just gone way too far. The news today is far too close to a Gerry Springer episode and I don't need movies of execution to understand it took place.

by jardinier

Of course I know from past experience that it is impossible to get most people at this website to acknowledge the very simple fact that the media, in all its forms, gives the general public what they want.

As was mentioned in another posting, sensationalism and gore sell newspapers and lift TV ratings. And why does this occur? Because the GP thrives on sensationalism and gore.

If you want more sedate reporting, then first educate the public, because it is their preferences which predominantly determine the kind of material presented by the media.

How long do you think a newspaper would stay in business, if it only published "nice" stories?

How long do you think a TV network would last if it avoided publishing graphic pictures?

I know I am wasting my breath, because it is obvious that most of you are so set in your ideas that you cannot see how flawed they are.

Ah, what terrible karma I must have brought with me into this life, to be the only journalist participating in these discussions.

What arrogance to think that you know more about how the media works than a person who has worked in the media.

Do I tell you how to run a network? Of course not, because that is not my field of expertise.

Anyhow bitch and whinge on with my blessing -- I am sure it makes you feel good to believe that you have real insight into how the media works, and why it presents the type of material that it does.

I will now depart from this discussion, and leave it to all the self-appointed experts on the processes of the media.

by tony hopkinson

life on the front line to tell a lie. If they were going to tell lies they would do it from somewhere safe and have some flunkie chuck a cherry bomb well away from them to give local colour.

I have the utmost respect for someone who risks their life to tell a truth, none whatsoever for someone who doesn't realise that they are doing it.
Even if a reporter tells the truth, their bosses have far fewer scruples and many of them have their own political agenda.

BBC bastion of good taste, upholder of journalistic freedoms and all around good guy.

News report during the miners strike, showed lots of miners attacking the police and then a charge in full riot gear. The events happened the other way round. Just a minor factual mistake, hardly created a bad impression at all, total co-incidence the withering of public support for the strike and the breaking of the last union to oppose government policy on labour issues.

I never whine, sometimes I do whinge though, perhaps it was an unconscious typo on your part. Hardly made a difference to the point you're trying to make though.

Media is opinion and fact. Not all the opinions ae presented, nor are all of the facts. Each holder of an opinion will stress some facts, introduce some and leave others out. Some where in the middle there will be A truth. THE truth is always personal.

If me, you or anyone else went out there , you would get their bias influenced by what they accepts as true. This will be another useful facet of the situation for others to reflect on in the comfort of their armchair.

by dafe2

I believe I was speaking for myself AKA GP. I do not pretend to know anything about media, apparently that?s your bag.

I don?t look to see ?nice? stories either, just MONOTONE news reporting.

All I said was bring back the CLASS to your profession as many of (your?) peers are wearing out the buttons on my remote controls.

In fairness though, your view of the GP at large may explain Paris Hilton & Donald Trumps current popularity.
:-)

by jardinier

and I can't do anything about changing the whole flavour of the media at large.

All I am asking is that you accept with good grace the fact that, no matter how flamboyantly presented, the media is your only source of information on what is going on in your own country and around the world.

I am assuming that you are an American, and I have no idea of what you are confronted with on your TV.

I am also aware that journalists can be excessively intrusive, and a regular pain in the a$$.

HOWEVER, for the most part it is not individual journalists who are to blame, but the pressure placed on them by their superiors to get the story to the presses or on air as quickly as possible, in order to be one jump ahead of the opposition.

We rarely hear the word "scoop" these days, but that is still the name of the game.

The tabloids largely rely on impulse sales prompted by sensational banners. I have worked in this situation, and I know the pressure involved.

However I have also been rapped over the knuckles on a number of occasions for errors in my reporting.

There was a classic example many years ago on a tabloid for which I was working. There was a story about a cow in a china shop (yes, literally). However without consulting a senior member of staff, a reporter thought it would sound better if it were "a bull in a china shop."

And so the front page story and banner were published.

The reporter was sacked on the spot immediately on returning to the office and revealing his "poetic license."

by dafe2

I'm Canadian.

It appears to me at least, there are too many china shop bulls & too few license 'suspensions'.

But it seems you appreciate what I'm driving at.

I think you'll appreciate this, but by personal choice, I don't get a newspaper any longer, do not watch the news on TV & only get the news via radio.

I'm only one person too, but p.iss on em.

DAFE2

by levannah44

Pardon my abysmal ignorance, dafe2, but what exactly is MONOTONE in the sense you've presented it here?

Yes, I'm well aware of its meaning in a general sense, but words such as "monotone" and "class" are both extremely subjective (IMO) when brought to bear on the media.

Because it's the GP who DEMAND what the media (in all its guises) bring them in the way of news, I utterly fail to understand where you're coming from when you use words like that.

What do you want? Nice feel-good stories all the time? Once in a while, there's nothing wrong with a feel-good story, but I bet if that's all the media brought you, you'd switch off the telly and radio, cancel your order for the newspaper, and only play games on your computer.

I'm not too sure that the executives of all the advertising companies and those who hire them would be terribly pleased. People switching off in droves, cancelling the paper and what have you is simply not good for business, not for all the feel-good stories in the world.

Which is why journalists do what they do, go where they go, so that we, the GP, will keep our tellies and radios ON, read our newspapers, surf the net.

THEY don't necessarily choose to go to dangerous places, such as Iraq, and not so long ago, Afghanistan. It's us, the GP, perhaps indirectly, but, let's face it, it's still us. We're the ones watching the shows that have the advertising that executives want us to see.

If you like, they're the ones to blame if anyone -- the advertising executives. Advertising runs our lives. So it's put in places where we'll see or hear it. And we're only going to see or hear what's advertised on a show if we like the show to begin with.

And when it comes to the news, sorry, guys and gals, but we demand it bad. We may not intend to, we may protest to the contrary, but somehow, along the way, we seem to want that gory stuff.

Perhaps we need a psychologist or philosopher to post on this thread, to tell us why we're like this. I certainly don't know why we are, but I do accept that it's simply part of human nature.

I don't like to see people get killed. War in any form sickens me. So many lives lost for what? Someone else's glorification, someone who's safe and usually nowhere near the scene of action?

Perhaps all lives lost in a war should be investigated. There'd be so many of them it may make the powers-that-be think twice before engaging in unnecessary warfare again.

I don't know the answers. I don't have any solutions and I'm not a journalist. But I do admire what WE, the GP, make them do on our behalf.

So please, people, stop the whinging about media sensationalism and all the rest of it now. It's only there because YOU ASKED FOR IT.

Levannah

by dafe2

"but words such as "monotone" and "class" are both extremely subjective (IMO) when brought to bear on the media"

I guess you found the problem didn't you?

by salamander

Levannah, my two cents' worth on why we (as a society, not anyone here personally) like to watch the gore is this... As a disclaimer, please note that I'm not trying to justify it at all, but suggest where it comes from.

Once upon a time, men and women faced real dangers in their environment. We had a real fear of an untimely, violent death, whether from natural disaster, disease, or at the hands of other people. Not too long ago, the shadows of death and violence were very close to us.

Now, most of us in Western society live in our safe, snuggly little cocoons. We are shielded from the worst of these things. Such things happening to us are unimaginable. And yet...some small parts of our brains are still wired to need that adrenaline jolt. We have insulated ourselves from death, but some atavistic parts of our brains know that it's still out there.

And so...we watch. We can't help it, fascinated, by this thing that is so apart from our daily lives. Seeing these things, I think, triggers some element of that fight-or-flight that has been dulled out of our routinized lives. On the same plane, look at the rise in thrill-seeking endeavors among the middle and upper classes: sky diving, mountain-climbing, etc. The reason that people give for undertaking these activities is the same: they need to feel alive.

By contrast, those who live with violence every day don't look at these pictures. They don't go base-jumping. They have had more than enough of fear that they don't need to seek it out vicariously.

You know what really gets us in Western society? When someone like us, the Laci Petersons of the world, meet a gruesome end. We are fascinated, because some parts of our brains are registering that intrusion upon the safe cocoon of suburban life. That could be me, we think, and it does chill us.

I'd argue that this...need to watch is voyeuristic. It reminds us that we are not immortal. It's not a noble thing, it's an atavistic thing, but it remains.

by hal 9000

Or his ilk which are sent around the world as a representation of the GP of the USA!

When you look at things like that and all the other crap is it any wonder that your country is the but of jokes and worse still considered as "Uneducated Infidels" by some?

Col

by amcol

Do what you want, but setting yourself up as the only knowledgeable person participating in this discussion, making imperative statements, then announcing you're taking your ball and going home because you don't like how the game is being played is not only arrogant, it's cowardly.

Whatever your own experience others are entitled to their opinions. I don't need to be an auto mechanic to have an informed opinion about how a car runs...as an operator of motor vehicles I can get behind the wheel of a car I've never driven and use my experience with other cars as a basis for formulating a position.

We're all consumers of the media. We may not be in the business, as you appear to be, but we've all had enough experience using the product you create to have a viewpoint. How arrogant of YOU to purport to tell all of us the way things are without any acknowledgement that we could possibly know anything about anything.

Aren't we fortunate that you're here to enlighten us.

Then, after throwing your stones, you withdraw from the battlefield. How sanctimonious. Or, are you so unsure of your position that you can broach no opposition?

And while I'm at it...you start a discussion thread, then you abandon it when you decide you don't like it any more? Don't do us any favors in the future, please. Or learn to finish what you start.

To Jaqui, who said in response to my taking her to task for her original patheticly insensitive remarks that the media should return to the pre-Vietnam ways of gathering news without actual war zone presence, that these methods worked just fine...what methods, exactly, were those? And how, exactly, did they "work"? Try a little research experiment...go get some WWII era issues of Stars & Stripes, then compare that "news" with what the history books now tell us really happened.

The only idea advanced by the previous poster that I agree with is that if you don't like what you're seeing in the media, don't look in the media. The rest of us would like to be informed.

by jaqui

don't complain when kis take weapons to school and shoot teachers / classmates.
with the media putting that out so much, then you are teaching kids that it's acceptable behaviour.

ahh, stars and stripes, the rag written for the troops to keep morale up.

why not look at nytimes about it?
the globe and mail of Toronto?
the big London England paper?
all three about same issues.
3 different stories, 3 different viewpoints.
none really the full truth.
watch reporters hanging off tanks in battle zones,
still not full story.
but do you need brains splattered to know you are being lied to?
no.

by amcol

Let's concede your point, for the moment. We stop sending war correspondents to the front lines, and/or we censor their transmissions to edit out all the brain splattering parts. Two questions:

1. Is the correlation between those news reports and incidents like Columbine so strong that taking this one action will prevent this from happening?

2. Exactly where do you propose we draw the line? Or is the Fourth Amendment not something we should be interested in any longer?

Let's concede your other point, also for the moment. Today's media has no credibility, for whatever reason. The original poster posed a challenge...get your "real" news from a source other than the media. You still haven't told us how you propose to do THAT.

by jardinier

is pretty pathetic.

Many people -- and I would suggest a majority of older women -- have owned and driven cars all their lives without knowing how the things work, let alone how they are manufactured.

Sure, you can own lots of cars, and form opinions and preferences, but unless you have visited a motor car factory you can't claim to known how they are assembled.

As an end user of the media, you can form lots of opinions and select preferences, but does this mean you know all the processes that are involved in producing the end product?

Not likely.

I do not believe in arguing because it does not accomplish communication.

So enjoy your supposed moral superiority while I hang back and see if there are any more postings worth commenting on.

Now there's another arrogant statement from me for you to crow about.

by amcol

Tell us...exactly what have you done in the media and for how long have you done it that you're such an apparent expert?

You're so accomplished and versatile in this field that you don't "believe in arguing because it does not accomplish communication"?

I guess I owe you an apology. I was under the impression one of the main purposes of the media (when not making money, of course) was to inform the public in order to generate discourse. Kind of like what's going on in this thread.

But, what do I know. I'm not a member of the media, as are you. And clearly, none of us on this board are in possession of any facts...as are you.

It's an awesome responsibility, knowing everything there is to know about something.

I hear Dan Rather's retiring. Perhaps you should submit your name as a possible replacement. Don't deny the world your knowledge and insights.

Do the previous comments qualify as the moral superiority you were talking about? Or are you beginning to get the idea that the message here is to be a little less close-minded? For all your bluster and foolish hubris you have some good ideas and express yourself well. How unfortunate that you don't have the broad spectrum of perspective that any truly competent media professional must have, to go along with that intelligence.

by jardinier

Apparently you did not understand my intention when I referred to arguing.

Whilst the dictionary definition is somewhat broader, I used the word in the sense of people throwing opinions at each other with no interest in actually listening to or absorbing what the others were saying.

You have provided an instance of this meaning of argument by totally failing to counter my criticism of your analogy of the motor vehicle.

You are also the only person in this discussion to date to make derogatory comments on my personal integrity.

I actually don't give a rat's a*s if you think I am arrogant.

I have started a discussion which has attracted quite a bit of interest and a great diversity of viewpoints.

As for my experience in the media, I trained and worked on the Sydney Morning Herald (a daily, morning broadsheet) which remains one of the most highly respected papers in Australia.

Later I worked on the now defunct Daily Mirror -- an afternoon tabloid. I have worked on various other smaller publications, and I am currently a member of the appropriate trade union in the category of Freelance Journalist.

But it doesn't take a lifetime to learn how a newspaper is prepared and published. I would say a few months at the very most would be required to become fully aware of how the news is gathered, processed and published.

I have not worked in TV or radio, but the procedure is much the same. There is, however, a LARGE difference in choice and emphasis of stories in the visual media -- for the very reason that it is visual.

Dramatic events obviously make for more attention-grabbing footage.

How many people do you think would bother to watch the news on TV if it just consisted of the presenter reading out the various items?

I don't recall anywhere in my postings where I claimed to know ALL about the media. I merely stated that I was the only person participating in the discussion who has first-hand knowledge of how the media works.

So you consider I am arrogant -- well bully for you. I have also formed an opinion of your own character as presented in your postings.

However I have no intention of posting it because my purpose is to provoke discussion, and not flame individuals.

by jaqui

any us based news program?

durind Desert Storm I watched news feeds for every country on satellight tv.
saw stuff that was broadcast in england that didn't make it into us news.
saw stuff broadcast in france that didn't make it into englands news.
saw stuff broadcast for here that didn't make it into us news.
every country censors the news.
go read new sites from other countries, then you will get full story.

did you view the time-life series of videos on war?
they had a really interesting view, even in the commercials, of a jeep driving right through the crosshairs of a smart missle, 5 seconds before it hit the road.
Shwartzcoff called that man the luckiest man in iraq. saw that the day the bomb was dropped, in a feed. it never got broadcast on any countries news.
( btw, I have not owned, now watched tv on 10 years, because of the media's love affair with blood and gore. I read news from around the world. to keep up. but watch some shitforbrains risk his life to show blood and gore, so his associates can complain when he gets killed? not. )

by hal 9000

In Afghanistan a convoy of allied troops way behind the front lines was bombed by a allied fighter, I believe that they call it friendly fire though for the life of me I can not see why if I had friends like that I'd lose them quick smart.

The reporter and cameraman where both killed and they where no where close to where the action should have been.

The point being that most people want to see news about these things as after all it is their money going up in smoke. Any Government can only spend your money they have none of their own so every time you see a vid clip of a smart bomb homing in on its target ask your self just how much of my money is going up in smoke there?

Col

by garion11

I mean am I supposed to feel sorry for em?? More people died in the Tsunami (which lasted like an hour or so) then a whole year of journalist deaths. I mean it is sad to see any death...but to put things in prespective more people die of auto accidents, Michael Moore movies and French culture than journalists.

A word to aspiring jouranlists...if there is a war going on near you...pay attention and be careful because there is a higher chance of you getting hurt, seriously maimed or getting killed as bullets and bombs these days are not smart enough to distinguish between nosy journalists and enemy troops.

by jardinier

and no, you should not feel more sorry about journalists being killed in danger areas than anyone else.

The point of the article, which I thought should be clear enough, is that various governments apparently consider journalists to be expendable.

However without the presence of journalists in trouble spots, we would have to rely on what the governments of those countries chose to tell us, which would quite likely be more biased than the stories provided by journalists.

Before the days of instant electronic communication, war correspondents were quite highly regarded as they provided the ONLY non-government news from the battlefront.

My neighbour, who is a historian, assures me that even these reports were vigorously censored by governments.

So far in this discussion, no-one has even addressed, let alone taken up my challenge to remain informed without using the available media.

by tony hopkinson

immediate vicinity, there is no way but to rely on somene else's version of event's.
I know the media has lied to me. Whether this was an individual reporter, an editor, the owner or some government agency with a D Notice. I know the media is used in an attempt to control my reasoning by limiting or outright falsifying an account.
I've never read an australian newspaper, so perhaps the profession in your part of the world is still intact. But I can tell you for a fact that it isn't in the UK. I learnt that when I was in my teens. The quality of their work has declined since then.

All my views on the media are coloured by the fact that in several known instances they were not to be trusted, my only defence is to never trust it.
They want their integrity back they are going to have to earn it, they have been singularly unsuccessful in the main.
There are reporters I trust to give me a factual representation of events as they happened. They are the famous ones, reporters whose reputation is more valuable to them than their job. Because it's their career. But these guys are the ones risking their lives and they do know they are doing it. Generally they'll deprecate the risk, and talk about the local rep who died while they were simply shot. So your starting article sounded like self serving BS to me. It's not so much that I want them to risk their necks to get me the news, just that the fact that they are prepared to, means I might get some.
I have n't seen a tabloid in the last 20 years that was worth more than an emergency toilet roll. Yet they are the most popular papers in the UK, so thats where the money get's spent. So he money that could have bought Jeremy Bowen better security is spent on some gold digging tart to tell me how a top footballer is crap in bed. The news is limited to a small section on page 5 and that totally biased by a political editor.
Don't tell me I wanted it, I never friggin wanted it, and any time I'm asked if I do and I respond negatively, is any attention paid, no because I don't spend my hard earned cash on such crap.

You want journalism to be a generally respected profession in the UK, get rid of the media.

As to your last point the only source of information I trust less than media is a politician. Put 650 odd of them in a room, it's still unlikely you'll get anything approaching a fact, the truth that's filtered out at the door. Unnecessary encumbrance to a career.

by hal 9000

Media is a business and any business is there to make money.

With the media Ratings are the standard measurement which imposes what that particular agency can charge for adversing, cost of the product if it is in printed form and so on and so forth.

Have a look at Fox News is it always correct? Does it matter? It is what people in the US want to see by a vast majority so it is Top of The Heap. It doesn't report fairly and in an unbiased manner it actually is so popular because of the bias that they use which appeals to a vast majority of the US public.

Just remember how much is paid by advertisers for a 30 second spot at the start of the Rose Bowl!

Col

by tony hopkinson

LOL
Ask the right question and you get the right answer.
Which show of type X do you watch most? Springer or Heraldo.
No third choice, hmmm what's that about then ?

Not to mention using other demographics to weight the answer, so you get the result you want.

Unfortunately, given the choice between crap tv and no tv, far too many will choose the former. How much tv do you watch per day is always one of the questions, so if you don't watch because it's crap you are discounted from the sample.

Aside from live sport, I watch about a fifteen minute news byte each day, then if I want to find out about it I look it up on the net. Usually I can find a report from both sides that hasn't been dumbed down to the point where a Jerry Springer fan can understand it.

I'm self important, they're self justifying.

by jardinier

anywhere in any of my postings that the people participating in this discussion were representave of the "average, typical" TV viewer.

by tony hopkinson

and while I can be extremely obnoxios, I would want visual confirmation before I accused someone of something as heinous as that.

by rknrlkid

Sad to say, but journalists ARE considered expendable by most countries. From what I have observed, the US is no exception. This seems rather callous, but at the same time, I can understand the possible viewpoint of a government. Now, please note that these are not "excuses" but is hypothetical governmental logic. It probably goes like this:

1. Journalists are not representatives of the government. They are private employees of a private organization. It does not matter what they do for a living. The private organization is responsible for the welfare of their employees.

2. If the journalist in question was not from MY particular country, its none of my business. My understanding is that many native journalists have been killed in Central America. You never hear about that here in the US because they are not American citizens. Daniel Perl, on the other hand, received lots of press because he was "one of us." (Or should I say "one of them" because the government didn't do a whole lot for him either.)

I view journalists the same way that I view soldiers, contract workers, aid workers, or anyone else in a war zone. Hello...you VOLUNTEERED to be there. When I was a soldier, I was constantly aware of the fact that I volunteered to have that job, and part of the deal was going to a hostile and potentially fatal environment. While the loss of any life is a tragedy, my outrage is tempered by the fact that I know its part of the job, and to be honest, they could have chosen a different career field.

I don't say this flippantly, either. I've been approached twice since leaving the military to undertake contractor positions (one in Bosnia, one in Iraq). Both paid in the six digits. I assessed the possible risks along with the possible gains, and turned both down. Personally, no amount of money is worth my life and limb anymore.

Sorry if I seem callous, but that is the reality of the situation from my perspective. I certainly DO think we should care. I think the media outlets themselves should care more, too, because it is their responsibility to do something for the journalists and/or family, not the government.

by jaqui

1 I really don't give a hoot about the 4th amendment.
look at my location.
us laws for the us.

2 yup there is a direct co-relation between showing continuous blood and gore and violence.
violence in the news, violence in the "entertainment"
violence in the games
and you expect kids to not be violent.

I know, take a 3 y/o put the gun in their hand, blow someones brains out with their hand on the trigger. that will show them not to be violent.

yet that is what the media is doing.
the US media being the worst offenders, after all they have the 4th.
and the 1st

the whole point is, if they choose to go into combat zone and some die.
that was thier choice!
NO INVESTIGATION NEEDED!!! IT'S A WAR ZONE!!!!!
PEOPLE GET KILLED THERE!!!!!

if they don't want to die DON'T GO THERE!!

they are not required to go there.

that's what the whole discussion is about.
stupidity on the part of the media.
they don't like having media members shit and killed, then they should stay out of combat areas.
they go into combat areas, someone gets killed, oh-well stupidity is always expendable

by ladyjet

The article is very well written, but for every journalist that has integrity, there are journalists who push the envelope and go after a story or subject with no concern to how the people in the story might feel...and go after them with something very akin to harrassment. This is why people are so upset with the media. Look at what happened to the Clintons, for instance, when the President, and Hillary as well, were basically tried and convicted in the press when what they did was not so different than what many Presidents have done before [NOTE: I am not a fan of either former President Clinton or his wife.]. There have been innocent people who are harrassed by the media when they've done nothing wrong or someone who was famous/infamous in their family died. What about those who were convicted in a court where the jury was biased by what the press wrote and later found innocent. You hear about the bad things, but when they found they made a mistake, the retractions are in the very back of the newspaper, so the community members, are unaware that this person was not at fault. There has to be some integrity, even in the media/press.

BIG news is just that--BIG news, and the media plays it for all it's worth without regard for whom they hurt. Not all the media does this, but it appears that there is a growing faction of unethical people in the media with a lack of integrity. This is why I do not like what some of the media does.

Jet Tenley

by hal 9000

Maybe you could point them to the BBC "Good News" section which only lasted a short time because no one wanted to see the Good News only the Bad News as they get Titillated by it.

Col

by jardinier

because I cannot access American TV, I have no idea what is dished up to you.

However I used to watch the "Today" show in the days of Bryant Gumbell and Jane Pauley. [It was screened at midnight in Sydney].

From the comments posted here, it appears somewhat likely that Australian television is more responsible and conservative as to the kind of images it presents.

by dafe2

LOL................looooong gone now. I can't speak for the US but in Canada we get a LOT of US programming.

It's PATHETIC. To be clear, I'm not sure if it's the gore or the DRAMA that's more annoying. Do you remember or have you seen the movie 'Broadcast News'? The media must have taken this as the rule & now 'act' accordingly.

As I mentioned earlier I don't bother with TV news or the newspaper any longer, my choice of course. Hopefully others will follow suit and 'fix' this.

I realize this is off topic, but at least in North America, IMO, most media people get less respect today than the proverbial used car salesman of yesterday. Mostly because many act like them.

Realize as you read this I'm not speaking about all media or all media representatives.......but the Television & Newspapers of Canada (And the United States) treat & publish the 'News' like a cross between a Soap Opera show and some bad Axe Murder Movie..

It's not that bad yet in Canada.....but the 'new blood' seems to be following in US footsteps and that's no surprise.

by jardinier

Well that is a very enlightening comment.

I find that I immediately gain respect when I introduce myself as a former Sydney Morning Herald journalist.

As a lonely, horny divorcee, I belong to a lot of matchmaking sites. I am also picked up on IM by females from various countries. Invariably these women are favourably impressed, if not awed, by my former vocation.

Actually I am still very much a practising journalist, because I publish a number of non-profit websites.

This of course is not to be interpreted as blowing my own trumpet, but as a possible contrast between the quality of journalism in Australia to that in America.

To the best of my knowledge and understanding, journalists of all media types are still highly respected in Australia.

Certain seasoned political reporters, for example, are highly respected for their insightful and unbiased interpretations of political issues.

by dafe2

Most of what you say has some truth to it I'm sure.....The main proble (As I see it) is the way the media now presents this stuff.

What I mean by that is:

1 - The showmanship
2 - The 'slanted' stories
3 - Unnecessary photographs or news clips
4 - Pushing someone in shock to speak publicly
5 - Bleeding a story till your fed up with it

Some argue "IT'S A BUSINEES YOU FOOL".....well of course it is. One analogy I can think of is selling an AMD CPU & telling you it's Intel.

I don't believe anybody here says only show us the good stories. I think what's being said is cut down on the drama.

Also the media (or parts of it) are directly or inderectly putting their people in harms way to get the 'scoop'...............I for one think that's unfair.

In the case of covering a war..........there's ennough technology out in the world today to enable a reporter to cover a story FAR away from the front lines. Stick a WEB cam on a tank and interview personel via Cell phone or something.

by amcol

...that you feel I impugned your personal integrity. That was not my intention, nor do I believe that's what I did, but I am sorry you feel that way.

For the record...you're wrong. You're not "the only person participating in the discussion who has first-hand knowledge of how the media works". That's the attitude you've been clearly displaying all throughout this thread, and it's why I felt it necessary to challenge your comments.

Perhaps, and I truly mean this with no disrespect, you might want to think about trying harder to acknowledge another person's knowledge base besides your own. And that it's not necessarily in your own best interest to take yourself quite so seriously. It's really rather intellectually limiting.

by jardinier

Please point me to a posting in which someone else mentions anything at all about having worked in the media.

You still remain the only participant in this discussion who criticises me personally, as distinct from my opinions about the media and journalists.

But you won't give up, will you. You just have to have the last say.

Perhaps you are trying to prove something about yourself.

On what grounds do you base your apparent assumption that your views have more validity than mine?

Quite frankly I find you a regular PITA who has contributed less of value to this discussion than most other posters.

by dafe2

Actually your last comments made me realize you may not be 'seeing' the same cr.ap we see in North America.

I stand by my earlier comments, however, I have a clearer understanding and appreciate where your comming from.....Journalist or not.

By reading some of your comments & the way you dealt with some commentary (here) I think there may be a significant difference between Media in Australia & the Americas.

IMO Journalists here get little or no respect anymore...so, if you come visit us looking for women & a good time you may want to keep that vocation quiet or you'll likely go home without having your trumpet played. :-)

by maxwell edison

.
The last time you made a comment to me concerning my "pet-peeve" about media bias, you called it a sickness. An interesting reply, to say the least. I had to wonder, if my mistrust of the media is a "sickness", does that mean people who mistrust big business.....or government.....or lawyers.....or any other general group of people or industry are equally inflicted, albeit with a different strain? And if I were alone in my suffering of this "sickness", then it might be reason for concern. But to the contrary, I have plenty of company.

The following tidbits were cut and pasted from a variety of sources, some of which have links provided.

The results from a recent study:

Are the news media biased? 78% said yes, 17% said no, 5% don't know.

Do the news media play fairly or play favorites with political issues? 67% said play favorites, 27% said deal fairly, 4% don't know.

How often Americans think media let personal politics influence coverage? 57% often, 32% sometimes. 8% seldom, 1% never. EIGHTY NINE PERCENT answered often or sometimes.

In 1997, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) retained the Lou Harris Organization to poll 3,000 people about their attitudes toward the press.

CMPA reported: "Majorities of all major groups in the population, including 70 percent of self-described liberals, now see a ?fair amount? or ?great deal? of bias in the news. In general, perceptions of bias rise along with levels of education and political participation."

"Those who see a liberal tilt outnumber those who detect a conservative bias by more than a two to one margin. Forty three percent describe the news media?s perspective on politics as liberal, compared to 33 percent who see it as a middle of the road, and 19 percent who find it to be conservative."
66 percent agree strongly or somewhat that the news media "favor a liberal point of view." Only 26 percent disagree strongly or somewhat that the news media "favor a liberal point of view."

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#public

69 percent of national news professionals said the distinction between reporting and commentary had seriously eroded, up from 53 percent in a similar survey of journalists in 1995.

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_survey_commentary.asp

http://www.journalism.org/

http://www.crikey.com.au/images/2004/09/30-YW70YEYB00.pdf

----------

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.

The poll found that only 7 percent of the nationally based journalists called themselves "conservatives" while 34 percent described themselves as liberal and 54 percent as moderate. Among the general public, according to a separate Pew poll from earlier this month, 33 percent call themselves conservative, 20 percent liberal and 41 percent moderate.

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184

A quote:

"There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful."

-- CBS's 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN's Larry King Live, June 5, 2002

Another quote:

"Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will."

-- ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

Another quote:

"There is a liberal bias. It?s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for ?- most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume?s bosses are liberal and they?re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut."

? Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas in an admission on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

----------

If my mistrust was totally unfounded, it might be reason for concern. But it has a basis in reality, as I've shown time and time again the deceptive nature of what we read. The SMH headline I mentioned is only one case in point. And whether or not I remembered it accurately doesn't really matter. The Dan Rather and CBS fiasco, which was tantamount to a Watergate-type scandal, The New York Times' problems of admitted misreporting or false reporting over the past year (and the NYT is the newspaper many foreign outlets rely on for their products),........... and on it goes.

On "trusting" the media, in general, people have limited choices. From what comes immediately to mind, I might suggest that those choices are limited, in some form, to the following:

1. Trust the media implicitly. Believe everything you read.

2. Never trust the media, and simply don't ever listen to them. After all, who needs to be informed, anyway?

3. Trust the media in general, but verify. After all, you can't believe everything you read.

4. Don't trust the media, in general, recognize the slant or agenda being advanced.

5. Be as widely informed as possible - read and listen from a variety of sources - try to receive a good "balance"

If you didn't know by now, I subscribe to option number five.

Julian, with all due respect, you seem to hold the journalism profession in such high-esteem, but have also let us know that you left the profession because you couldn't write your articles as you wanted. Moreover, if I remember correctly, it's been quite some time since you left the profession. What was it, 20, 30 or more years ago?

And you were also correct in that last message to me that I do indeed preach and practice positive thinking -- and I'm positive there's a general liberal bias in the media. (In case you weren't sure, that was a joke.)

Quite frankly, in my opinion, anyone who holds the media in such high esteem, not recognizing them for what they really are (mere humans) is really the one inflicted with a sickness.

EVEN JOURNALISTS themselves think there's a liberal slant to the media, and that journalists can't keep their personal views from influencing their reporting. When I have more time, I may post more symptoms of my "sickness".

----------

And on your topic that was obviously meant to elevate journalists to the status of sainthood, perhaps they should blame the people who are actually killing the reporters and start holding them accountable instead of the people who are attempting to put a stop to it.

by jardinier

"my mistrust of the media is a "sickness."

I said nothing of the sort. I said that your obsession with looking for errors in the media was a sickness.

And yes, I am proud of my profession. And yes it is 30 years since I worked on a metropolitan daily.

But that does not mean I abandoned the profession altogether. I have worked intermittently for a number of small publications, as well as submitting for publication articles which I have written myself.

I have had articles and letters published in the local free press, and my numerous acquaintances from the various churches I have attended, always comment favourably on my remarks, despite the fact that these people are predominantly conservative voters.

As mentioned in one or other of my postings, I am still an accredited freelance journalist. As you also well know I publish several websites.

And more often than not there is some item by yourself lifted from a discussion that is posted on my primary website.

It has also emerged, and been acknowledged in this discussion, that the overall quality of the media in America is most likely very inferior to that in Australia.

So your statistics drawn from polls in America most likely have no bearing on the opinions of Australians on our media.

Yes, most journalists in Australia are liberals (in our parlance, Labor supporters).

The general presentation of the news, however, does not appear to show any bias either to the left or the right. A story is a story.

Currently the Labor Party ("liberal" in your jargon) is receiving a real trouncing in ALL the media because of its leadership crisis after Mark Latham had to step down because of illness.

The Sydney Morning Herald continues to be a highly respected publication, and I do not think that your personal views on this are worth the cyber-space in which you have expressed them.

And of course you wouldn't have even known about a certain heading in the SMH if I hadn't raised it in a discussion.

As to your personal integrity, you were caught with your pants down when, in some discussion, you claimed you had searched the archives of the SMH.

As I pointed out at the time, and this still holds true, in order to access the archives you have to join up and pay money before you can do so.

Perhaps this service is available to non-Australians, but I doubt it as the factor of monetary exchange rates would simply not make the exercise worthwhile to the publishers.

However as you did not respond to my comment at the time, I assume that you had not, in fact, accessed the SMH archives.

And by the way, Maxwell, you and I share a little secret about your hypocrisy in your personal attitude towards me.

Now what jolly fun it would be if I chose to reveal to all your peers what an utter hypocrite you have recently proved to me?

by maxwell edison

.
It's interesting that you didn't reply to any of the information in my message, but instead resorted to your usual personal attack.

by maxwell edison

You said in a previous message, ".....(your) purpose is to provoke discussion, and not flame individuals." (Did I get that quote right?)

It's quite obvious to not only me, but many others, judging from your flaming sessions in this very discussion, that you are simply being condescending and mean-spirited, not to mention disingenuous.

Geesh Julian, when one person (me) makes an attempt to "bury the hatchet" (by various means), one wouldn't exactly expect a reciprocal gesture of sticking that hatchet into one's back.

Disingenuous indeed.

by maxwell edison

.
The only things I quoted were two single and isolated words: "pet-peeve" and "sickness".

And your twisting and skewing of my words and true intent is indicative of journalists in general. Yep, you're sure "one of them". You sure showed us. And in my opinion, it's right up there with lawyers and used car salesmen.

by tony hopkinson

Now come back. It's your own fault, with that headline you asked us to continue bashing you and we duly obliged.

Read all about it
Journo fools techs.
Initiated into secret societies with strange electronic handsake.
Hear about peer pressure from your brave reporter, who had to assume an alias to gain entry to a techno cabal.
Shadowy figures, with sinister names, document their plans on how to run the world and csuse unrest among the masses of dupes whose input diguises this groups nefarious intent. The conversion of the universe to Linux. ....

Continued on page 3

I'm quite good at this, may be I should go for a career chnage.
Not as a type setter though.
LOL

by hal 9000

Any Typesetters left in the industry anymore. Some idiot invented computers and did away with that position.

You would only find a position of "Typesetter" in a very small operation which now days would be something like one of the very small self interest groups who bought up all that old gear so they could produce their regular publications. But it would be interesting to see a mistake like this in one of the religious prints. A misplaced word instead of God Satan was used. :D

Col

by Member 25348569

It has some nice "typo bibles" as a sidebar - up to and including the "Buggre Alle This Bible" of 1651 when the typesetter replaced Ezekiel 48:5 with a rant complaining about his job.

It's both very funny and it's also fully creationist-friendly in that Genesis to Armageddon is only 6004 years. That should make the nutters in the nextdoor-but-one thread very happy.

Neil

by amcol

I don't know this Julian person, as you apparently do. However, it's crystal clear in the responses both you and I have been getting there's no reason to continue the discussion.

I'm hard pressed to recall anyone I've ever conversed with, in any medium, who was more hard-headed, obstinate, stubborn, close-minded, egotistical, arrogant, COMPLETELY unwilling to see anyone else's point of view, and so COMPLETELY convinced that they were the only one in possession of any facts at all.

I found your posting to be thoughtful and thought provoking, well reasoned and well documented. I don't agree with all of it, but I like what you presented and the way you presented it.

I don't know about you but I don't have the time or inclination to beat this dead horse any longer. There's no way to get through to this person, so why bother. On to another thread, perhaps.

by maxwell edison

.
.....who single-handedly made Julian decide to despise all Americans, at least decide to admit it. And you're right on the content of your message. (And thanks for the other comments.)

by levannah44

Not my problem, dafe2 -- yours. I simply want to know how you would define these two "labels", for the very simple reason they ARE so subjective?

by hal 9000

You can see their lips moving!

Isn't it wonderful just how many people would trust a "Used Car Salesman" over a Politician!

Col

by tony hopkinson

is when they say they are doing something for you.
Seeing as politicians lips are always moving , and they always claim to be acting in our interest, this indicates a very sad state of affairs.

by maxwell edison

.
Least trusted professions - in Australia - not necessarily in any particular order.

Journalists
Politicians
Lawyers
Car Salesmen
Real Estate Agents
CEOs

http://sweepstakes.com.au/rd/factsheet.pdf#search='least%20trusted%20professions'

"Making up the top five least trusted professions in New Zealand were marketers, trade unions, journalists and car salesmen, followed by politicians in last place."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/BU0110/S00127.htm

What about in Great Britain?

"In a survey unlikely to surprise anyone, journalists and advertising executives are among the least respected professions in the UK, according to a poll conducted by BBC Radio 4's Today programme."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4423843,00.html

".....a recent poll had shown that print journalists were trusted by fewer than 25 per cent of people."

http://www.ukeditors.com/articles/2000/October/Conference302.html

And in the USA?

"In public surveys, they (lawyers) consistently ranked near the top of the list among least-trusted professions, in company with journalists and used-car salesmen.

I guess I'm not so "sick" after all.

By the way, did you hear the one about the journalist who......

by levannah44

Now that I find a very rational and logical explanation. It may not be the right one, but it sure does explain why we crave these sights while still protesting vigorously that it's too sensationalist, we don't want that kind of thing.

In another of my posts to this discussion, I suggested it would be a great idea if a philosopher or psychologist could post here as well, and tell us all what's the matter with us! A bit tongue in cheek, but there was also a certain amount of seriousness in the proposal as well.

However, failing such a person, I think your answer gives the next best insight into our motives, Salamander. I had thought of the flight vs fight response myself, but only in passing. Now, when I look into it more deeply, it's certainly a possibility. After all, it's not the only "left-over" we have from our cave-dwelling days!

You also spoke about being snug in our little cocoons. That too; in other words, we like our "comfort zones" and don't readily want to go beyond them. The majority, I mean; the adrenalin seekers, risk-takers, etc. will go outside this boundary more often, but we like the safety of being inside just looking out.

And as long as "outside" doesn't impinge on our snugly comfort or safety, then we're quite prepared to gawk from where we know we ourselves won't be harmed.

Do you remember the story of Peter and the Wolf when you were little? Peter's the kind of risk-taker I mean; he enjoyed playing in the meadow next to the forest where the wolf lived.

His grandfather wasn't a risk-taker, as we see by his actions in taking Peter home and locking the gate to the meadow. Grandfather is content to remain in the safety of his own home, behind a locked gate that keep wolves out.

Peter's not so shy. He boldly confronts the wolf, which is lead away to a zoo. While Grandfather was quite prepared to leave things as they were, Peter was not.

And that's exactly how most of us are, I think. Not too many of us want to take that initial step and go outside our comfort zones, except the journalists and people like them. They're the ones who enable the rest of us to stay behind our locked gates and observe in safety.

No, it isn't very noble, but that's the way we are. And that's probably what makes us react the way we do -- we snipe at those who are bold enough to go and face the danger on our behalf to hide our guilt feelings.

Cheers

Gret

by maxwell edison

.
I recently read an analysis about journalists and their methods of reporting. It went something like this.

(I'm paraphrasing.)

There are three kinds of journalists:

1. Those who see something and report only on what they see.

2. Those who see something and report not only on what they see, but what it means.

3. Those who don't see something, and then report on what it means.

The majority of journalists fall into category number three. Fewer and fewer journalists fall into category number one.

If I can find the source of this analysis, I'll post it. I would love to give credit to the person who made such a brilliant observation.

by oz_media

Okay everyone knows I can't resist a good argument, or even a poor one for a while.

My PERSONAL views are that I must agree, media does have bias, it is written by individuals, it is virtually impossilbe to not place a personal spin on what is said.

Canadian reports are people stories, not political stories. That's what people here have shown they want to read, they read about Canadians and their accomplishments or shotcomings.

SO yes there is a bias.

I see US AND Canadian news, at the same time on different channels.

My beef about news in the US is how it is so one sided in it's reporting of the wars. America shows ONE side and that's a VERY pretty side. They quote only quotes from people who have positive views from foreign country's about how all is going well and they are welcomed with openarms wherever they go.

Canadian reports show the pain and suffering these people endure, they interview people that despise the US intervention and wish they would leave. THey also show the few happy ones but they are outweighed by stronger opposition.

When looking at how the war is progressing, or not gaining any ground at all, it is not hard to believe the negative veiws as they are echoed in the actions of the country. People aren't seizing freedom and holding onto hopes for democracy, and those that are are outnumbered.

Just like Afhanistan, after removing the majority of troops, it started to slide right back into the same oppression as before, the same maltreatment of women, the same banning of women from womens groups, and education.

Even the only woman with a seat in government was removed by leaders who were radical extremists saying that she was a traitor who didn't belong in their government because she was too western in her motives.

She was the only woman who had a voice for women in Afghanistan, not anymore. She fled and sought safety with UN troops, who are still there.

All the while I am reading here and viewing US news reports about how successful liberation in Afghanistan was? When actually with cameras rolling down the center of Aghanistan, it was unsafe for the female reporter to walk alone, even then she was stoned and sworn at. She was too scared to go into certain areas where she had been abducted a few years earlier, apparently nothing changed and there are areas of Afghanistan where women cannot walk period, reagardlessof wearing a bourqa or anything else, it is 'nowomans' land so to speak.

Liberation and freedom didn't do anything really and certainly haven't become the way of Afghanistan as stated too often. Extremists still rule the government and nobody is really any better off. The Taliban? Still going strong in Kandahar, just as before. The security the coalition setup in Afghanistan to protect women in training schools, handed over to thugs who once agaoin beat and repress women.

Sorry for the long segue but it just iterates how two countries air two completely different stories. The US shows only one side of what was done, not the current reality of what is still happening regardless of US efforts, who would support a war if they knew it was fuitless?

NOw I know the same is said about Canada and yes the stories here are mostly stories of humanity and repression in other countries, but that does allow us to see that side because it is welcome by Canadians and it sells news here. We also see the righteous fight views from the US as well as Canadian reports so we get some balance. All I see in US news is how great the US is doing and how much better off these once poor and pathetic people now are.

So while I think that all media is biased in some way, I see VERY little being aired in the US, only ONE side of reality and not both. It certainly wouldn't be an exmple of how the entire story that gets aired in the US, they merely air what they deem people want to see and what sells. In Canada we want to see all sides and can accept success or failure as we don't hold our government with high esteem to see them fail is actually expected, in the US it seems only the 'US is victorious' side is welcomed, and that's therefore the only side shown.

Perhaps why many Americans see America as never doing any wrong and the rest of the world is completely screwed up. Propaganda still exists today as it did in WWII unfortunately, and it is there for all to see quite clearly when we just have a good look.

by amcol

anyone anywhere in the world has of judging how skewed from reality the news media presents "news". To do so requires that we know the actual facts...since the news media itself reports those "facts", there's no baseline for comparison.

There's also no way to assess which country skews news more, nor does that analysis have any relevance. The only thing we all know for sure is that there's no such thing on Planet Earth as a news organization that reports the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts.

You said it very well yourself..."they merely air what they deem people want to see and what sells". To paraphrase myself from a previous post in this thread, the media is not in the business of reporting the news, rather they're in the news business. They exist to make money. No service, no type, no country is immune.

I also take issue with your characterization of American news. As an American watching American news, and as an American receiving news from a variety of international sources (including Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and Australia) I definitely detect a bias that is nationalistically oriented in each one.

However, when one broadens one's scope wide enough to include enough different media sources a more complete picture begins to emerge. Using the American news media as an example, there are sources that are liberal leaning as well as those that are conservative. There's propaganda and screaming headline tabloids at one end of the spectrum, and sedate thoughtful analysis at the other. To characterize the entire media industry of any country as having one particular bias in any direction or presenting only one particular side of any story is kind of superficial.

by maxwell edison

.
For anyone to suggest, such as Oz did, that International news is less biased than US news, they apparently haven't seen the British coverage of the recent Inauguration. It's so biased, in general, that it borderlines parody (or even has crossed the line).

And parody isn't reality.

by Member 25348569

I don't remember too much coverage at all and, seriously, wouldn't necessarily recognise what you would define as bias. Parody, I don't recall. What news media did you see?

It's difficult to quantify bias in someone else's news as the references are different and viewpoints as to the centre-line are obviously different. I only see US TV news when I'm over on vacation and most - if not all of it - is about stuff I don't care about so I'm interested in your take on UK coverage on anything that you might find relevant.

Let's see if I recognise it.

Neil

by amcol

"It's difficult to quantify bias in someone else's news".

Exactly, precisely the point. Brilliant.

There have been a lot of comments thrown around this thread about this country's news media being more biased than that country's news media, who in turn is more biased than the other country's news media, etc., etc., etc. Each person defends their own country's news media as the least biased. Aren't we all doing exactly what we're all accusing each other's news media of doing?

And in the end, it just doesn't matter. ALL NEWS MEDIA IS BIASED. Does it really matter how much? Or whose is worse?

I spent more than ten years in the business myself. I can tell you from personal experience that 90% of what you see in any news media isn't true, and the other 10% is false. Anywhere in the world.

by tony hopkinson

complained about that as well, they postponed one of her favourite programs on the Beeb to put it on.

As for news bias, that's a given. Impartial news is impossible, every one has their opinion and its bound to colour the way they report and then it will be filtered through our own bias when we see it. Pass it through a few people and you get a chinese whisper anyway.

Parody is a great British institution, did you ever get blessed, with Spitting Image over there ? That did way more than cross the line, and was a national institution for many years.

by oz_media

Too bad it isn't on anymroe actually it was well made and a lot of work went into it.

YOu rarely see US shows poke fun of the poiliticians though, there are the late night guys who always throw a few slags in the monologue but for the most part it is taken pretty seriously.

Spitting Image did a great Thatcher, Pierre Trudeau etc. though! I wonder what happened to it?

by hal 9000

Yes Minister/Prime Minister Series? That not only crossed the line but was considered as a MUST SEE show by Politicians in most parts of the world where it was shown.

I do not know if you ever saw "Rubbery Faces" but that was another one that went a long way that some took offense to I personally found it funny but I'm warped.

Col :D

by oz_media

"For anyone to suggest, such as Oz did, that International news is less biased than US news,"

Well I actually said:
[i]"My PERSONAL views are that I must agree, media does have bias, it is written by individuals, it is virtually impossilbe to not place a personal spin on what is said." [/i]

I described that what I didn't like about US news was that it showed one side, I then commented that Canadian news shows a different side and some of the happy side but it is outweighed by the grim.

I suppose many would take that to mean US news leans right and Canadian news leans left.

What this doesn't say or 'suggest' though is; "International news is less biased than US news"

Please repost that assertion as even on a second read I am missing it.

"Canadian reports are people stories, not political stories. That's what people here have shown they want to read, they read about Canadians and their accomplishments or shotcomings.

SO yes there is a bias."

Now from what I read into that (especially since I typed it) is that ALL news is biased INCLUDING CANADIAN NEWS, as described above Canadian news takes a more humanitarian angle.

So whle I did say I don't like the way the US shows only a positive angle in the news and Canada shows a bit of both, I also explained several times how all media is biased (including Canada as we also have 'media' here too) but I prefer to see a better balance that we DO get in Canada, even though it is with a humanitarian twist. Editing two identical pieces of video and showing more of it on Canadian TVin the US is just one such example. I don't know HOW many times I have explained that I do watch multiple news sources inorder to get a better balance. I just find the US news doesn't report the actocities occuring in the recent wars, which I see as neededin irder to show the realities and destruction created during war. Perhaps less people would raise their Coors can and hoot everytime someone mentions the US military is at war.

I haven't said that international news is less biased than US news, that was your conclusion.

by maxwell edison

.
I'm certainly not defending American news. I think my opinion of the news media, in general, is pretty clear.

And 'm not going to get into a long debate with you over what you may or may not have asserted. I did not quote you, per se, but rather, as you suggested, drawn a conclusion based on too many hours reading your various messages (in all discussions) over the past months.

You've continually suggested that American news is one-sided, and that people around the globe are exposed to a more real and/or accurate perspective of what's going on. Have I been misreading your messages all this time, and are you suggesting otherwise? Are you suggesting instead that people around the globe are NOT exposed to a more real and/or accurate perspective of what's going on?

Does International news, in general, show a more "balanced" view of world events than American news, or is International news, in general, just as biased as American news, but leaning in the other direction? It can't be both.

I suggest that International news is EXTREMELY biased and one-sided, and it's generally a vehicle for spreading anti-American sentiment. Do you agree or disagree? (A simple answer will suffice.)

by Member 25348569

I had a feeling that it would be the daily papers. I don't read them any more as each one of them has it's own agenda and bias.

The largest circulation, the Sun, and the prestigious Times are both owned by Murdoch, an ex-Aussie US citizen!

Bush wass not the only target. The papers seem to thrive on sensationalism and then sarcasm and ridicule as weapons to get readers.

Neil

by tony hopkinson

detect a hint of bias in there. (British understatment before you hammer the H key through the bottom of your desk).
Even the Times stooped a bit lower than usual. Personally, while I generally agree with the sentiment, I don't think this sort of crap helps. A reasoned argument might get some people to listen, ridicule only polarises the issues.
It's a practiced tool of manipulators as well, which just proves the point about the media.

by maxwell edison

.
When you said, "A reasoned argument might get some people to listen, ridicule only polarizes the issues", you did indeed say it all.

I am one who welcomes - with open arms - reasoned and rational discussion and debate. But when it stoops to the level of ridicule, all is lost. And I must say, that is a perfect way to describe much of the "discussion" levied against President Bush and the USA, and those are the people I couldn't care any less about when it comes to their opinion. Their "polarizing ridicule" simply renders their entire opinion insignificant. (And they know who they are.)

by sleepin'dawg

Seeing as he is such a perfect a$$hole. :p
BTW have you ever wondered what happened to Preparations A through G??? ;)
Dawg

by oz_media

The diference I see is when a certaincource's taped interviews are shown. In Canada we see more of the interview than the US stations air from teh same tape aquired from teh same source.

Ex. Someone video records an interbiew, it may be a 2 minute video clip shownin US news ad a 3 minute clip in Canadian news, usually with the last minute including information that doesn't paint the prettiest picture.

Not taking sides just airing a comparative view of the same news. Yes I know Canadian news is mroe left leaning, in fact compared to the US what we deem a right wing report would be consider string left there. But as I said before, Canadian news is more focused on people effectd by issues rather than the political view of the issue.

by sleepin'dawg

Those place a distant third and fourth and not necessarily in that order. Politicians have second place all to themselves but even they are running behind journalists, who are a true waste of resources. I guess if you are looking for unbiased TV journalism the closest thing to it would be PBS but even they let a little bias slip through now and then. They are superior to commercial network news programming. Shakespeare said, "First kill all the lawyers" but if the old boy were alive today he'd probably go after the jounalists with a chain saw.
Dawg

by oz_media

I work in media and promotional advertising in many countries. Copy that is catchy and cutting edge for Europe, would have you arrested in North America.

Canadian news is a bore, unless you like watching amateur hockey highlights. The politics in Canada isn't news worthy so we are fed humanitarion stories. Ths makes for good suppertime viewing but it isn't exactly NEWS. The difference i do note in Canadian news is that they have more live reports from Iraq, investigative reporting in Afghanistan etc. The humanitarian stuff sells.

When watchin gthe SAME new clips on US networks, they are chopped to bits and only little excerpts that have Americans in them are included when compared to what we see here.

This tells me that you are only interested in YOUR side of the story.

Now if you construe this as an attack on American media, America itself or the people of America is completely up to you, it was an honest observation, you don't have to agree with it.

But I certainly wouldn't say any news agency is not biasd, news is reported and written by people not robots.

by oz_media

Max, those rags are the equivalent of the US supermarket chekout garbage.

Man with 17 heads gives birth to donkey etc.

Absolute crap, don't be offended though, they raked Lady Di, Prince Charles, and anyne else that is the hot topic of the day, over the coals too.

These rags are just tabloid garbage made to appear like news, but it really equates to The Enquirer, Star etc. It takes some pretty common muck of a Brit to see truth in that stuff. Take it for what it is, something to fill a page of a news rag.

by Member 25348569

He became a US citizen in 1985 as "the only way to continue the build-up in his empire".

Check out what he owns! Brrrrrrr!

Neil

by Member 25348569

Oz, it just sort of died away as tastes changed and Thatcher and a lot of the more "visible" politicians were replaced with non-entities. In its hey-day it was credited with destroying the political career of David Steele, the Liberal leader, with its portrayal of him as a small sqeaking puppet figure in the breast pocket of another politician.

Most of the mainstream TV satire over here is now in the hands of impressionists, Rory Bremner and others, who combine mimicry and satire together for a dumbed-down audience. Still, at least there is SOME left. RB does a pretty good GWB but nice it isn't.

Neil

by tony hopkinson

Something I've noticed while conversing with you chaps across the water is I do tend to judge americans by their public face in the UK, which unfortunately for you is GWB. If you notice me doing it tell me off. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with Bush about anything, unless he starts extolling the virtues of Pascal based development languages of course. LOL
But I'll try to say why, intead of just calling him a spoon.

by tony hopkinson

International news should be call Othernational news. Even if you look at the global boys like Reuters what they report is edited and presented with a national bias.
Can't comment on whether there's a better spread of bias in america as the only channel I can get in the UK is CNN. In our own the different channels do have their own slant and the more in depth programs are interesting. But all this news is assessed on how it impacts the UK.
The impact of war, trade tariffs and blithe refusal to consider the effects of pollution explains the bias quite easily.

by maxwell edison

...if you compare these newspapers to American "Supermarket Tabloids". American tabloids are a laughing stock and aren't taken seriously.

World-Newspapers.com describes those papers this way:

Independent:
Daily liberal broadsheet with a wide international coverage.

Daily Telegraph:
Well written conservative broadsheet.

Times:
Slightly conservative, the oldest British national daily.

Guardian:
Left of centre top quality daily.

Daily Star:
Right-wing tabloid specializing in pictures of underdressed models.

So it seems as though maybe ONE out of those five could be considered in the "tabloid" category.

If you disagree, please let me know which British Daily newspaper you consider equivalent to the New York Times or the Washington Post, and we'll look at their headline on January 21.

To my English peers, are these more "tabloid" in nature or more "main-stream"? And can you answer the previous question about a NYT equivalent?

Moreover, it's not how one might categorize these publications that's the issue, but rather how many people read them, and how much credence those people place in what they read. If a great percentage of Brits, for instance, actually read and heed these publications, regardless of how YOU might categorize them, then they do indeed exert a huge amount of influence over how people derive their opinions; and that's my point.

by hal 9000

Sorry it just doesn't work that way.

Different countries have different views put across but with the exception of some of the more fanatical Muslim sites and the ones bent on World Domination like the Murdoch press I would not say in General that most International News is Anti American. It is how ever certainly not pro American but that by no means implies that it is Anti American.

How about a simple Yes/No answer to this question Microsoft makes the best most reliable and secure software available. Now could you in a simple Yes/No answer provide a an answer?

Col

by oz_media

YEs I know these are seen by some as 'news' and they are sold as such. A&E, or one of those channels, actually had a show on about British reporters for a couple of them a while back. They followed two reporters, one was with the Times, the other I forget now.

BOTH reporters were no different than US papparazzi when it came to building stories that sell. There are a lot of competing newspaper iin the UK and they all twist and slant to provide a readable, and more importantly, selling story.

I get a selection of different UK newspapers sent here all the time.

They are adhered to by some as if they are gospel. Most know that the media is heavily slanted and just wants to sell stories, this is where I equate them to supermarket rags.

by oz_media

I don't think the purpose is to spread Anit- American sentiment really. I think in many cases, it's just a way of turning focus from their own issues, much as the US does too.

Yes I have said that US news is one sided, not that ours ISN'T though, but that we get your news, Asian and middle eastern news AND US news which provides a better balance by sharing various aspects of the same story. Airing different footage etc. This I feel gives a better overall impression of issueus as more of the ACTUAL footage is seen this way.

by Member 25348569

that the US is at the lowest point in world popularity for a very long time.

Anti-Iraq War feeling in the UK is very strong and the majority of the population did not want involvement at the beginning and even fewer want it now. Our newspapers generally don't go against any strongly held viewpoint that is common to their readership unless there is a very good reason. "Being nice to the USA" is not reason enough to go against the overwhelmingly anti-Bush feeling in the UK.

In addition, our "centre" is very much to the left of your equivalent.

Given all of that then the only surprise in the coverage of the inauguration is the lack of imagination in the headlines.

Of "quality" dailies, The Independent and (especially) The Guardian would be very left from your standpoint. The Telegraph, I would consider right-wing, less so The Times - seen as the "best" daily newspaper. You would not consider any of them right-wing.

Sales of each are a million or two daily and, yes, their readers would believe much of what they print and yes, they have reputations for integrity and good journalism within their various readership boundaries.

The Star is probably at the bottom of the "daily" pile in quality, below The Sun and The Mirror. The latter is probably the most left-wing daily and has aspirations, having recently removed the traditional "red-banner" favoured by the tablod newspapers.

We also have The Mail, a "quality tabloid", whose readership is the towards right wing (OUR right wing).

These all sell from a couple of million to several million daily (The Sun) and are a lot more sensationalist and celebrity-news based. The Sun, especially, likes uncovering affairs by politicians and mainstream celebrities. Generally, they are not known for dishonesty, rather sensationalism. And, yes, their readership can generally be affected by some of what they say.

ALL of these newspapers, despite the "Special Relationship", our common history, our common language, our common values, our involvement with you in Iraq, our sympathy for 911 and despite the fact that most of us like most of you, just about p:ssed on GWB's inauguration.

Makes you think, doesn't it? Makes me think, anyway.

Neil